STATEWIDE PERFORMANCE MONITORING INDICATORS FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FINAL REPORT

Transcription

1 STATEWIDE PERFORMANCE MONITORING INDICATORS FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FINAL REPORT June 28, 2013 The work upon which this publication is based was funded in whole or in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic Growth Council.

2 Disclaimer The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the GRANTEE and/or Subcontractor and not necessarily those of the Strategic Growth Council or the Department of Conservation, or its employees. The Strategic Growth Council and the Department make no warranties, express or implied, and assume no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text.

3 STATEWIDE PERFORMANCE MONITORING INDICATORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction and Background In 2011, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) received grant funding from the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to support its sustainable communities planning efforts. One of the goals of the grant is to collaborate with other California Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and state agencies on common statewide transportation indicators related to Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) (Steinberg, 2008) implementation. The stated purpose of this effort was to develop a common standardized set of up to ten transportation performance monitoring indicators that would be used by California MPOs and state agencies, such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Transportation Commission, Caltrans, and other state agencies. Other state agencies that participated in this project include the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the California Department of Public Health, the Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the SGC. To facilitate the development of a statewide performance monitoring framework, SANDAG sought input from the MPO/State Agency SB 375 Implementation Working Group. Additionally, a Technical Group comprised of MPO and state agency technical staff was created to identify possible indicators and methodologies, and viable data sources that would allow for progress to be measured using observable data. While performance measures rely mostly on modeled or forecasted data, performance monitoring indicators rely directly on observed data. MPOs use travel demand models or Geographic Information System (GIS) analyses to forecast performance measures. Ideally monitoring indicators would be considered together and be consistent with modeling performance measures. Currently, not all MPOs prepare monitoring reports using observed data on a regular basis. Proposed Performance Monitoring Indicators The Technical Group conducted a review of more than 200 performance measures and indicators used by MPOs and state agencies. The group identified those most commonly used, which could be monitored using statewide and regional data sources. The Technical Group developed a list of nine performance monitoring indicators, as shown in Table 1, and methodologies. These indicators account for the diversity of California in terms of smaller and larger regions, more rural and more urban regions; utilize available statewide data sources; and are consistent with SB 375 and the performance goals established in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (). The proposed list of indicators incorporates transportation indicators that relate to public health, shown in Table 1 with asterisks, which compare closely with similar indicators included in the draft core list of indicators developed for the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project by the California Department of Public Health. They include miles traveled, mode share, fatalities/injuries, transit access, change in agricultural land, and CO 2 emissions. 6/28/13 i

4 Similarly, in addition to the proposed economic vitality indicators, the infrastructure indicators (State of Good Repair of transportation infrastructure) and the system reliability indicator also interrelate with economic vitality. Other relevant transportation monitoring indicators that require data sources that are not currently available at a statewide level have been identified as part of this effort, including those that could be monitored further for communities of concern (Table 2). Table 1: Proposed Performance Monitoring Indicators ID Inventory Ref. (Appendix B) Category Statewide Performance Monitoring Observed Data Performance Measure (Model Based) Referenced In Congestion Reduction 1 A-8 / A-1 VMT a. VMT per capita* b. Percent of Congested Freeway/ Highway Vehicle Miles [PeMS] SB 375 & SB 375 & 2 A-16/A-18 Mode Share (Travel to work)* Infrastructure Condition State of Good Repair a. Highways 3 - b. Local Streets c. Highway Bridges d. Transit Assets System Reliability SB 375 & 4 A-65 Freeway/Highway Buffer Index [PeMS] Safety Fatalities/Serious Injuries 5 A-39 6 C-33 a. Fatalities/Serious Injuries per capita* b. Fatalities/Serious Injuries per VMT* Economic Vitality Transit Accessibility (Housing and jobs within 0.5 miles of transit stops with frequent transit service)* SB A-84 Travel Time to Jobs Environmental Sustainability SB 375 & 8 B-1/B-5 Change in Agricultural Land* SB E-5 CO2 Emissions Reduction per capita (modeled data)* SB 375 & * Indicator relates to Public Health [PeMS] Indicator for MPOs that have access to PeMS data 6/28/13 ii

5 Indicators to Consider for Future Development The Technical Group identified a number of indicators to be considered in future monitoring efforts, once necessary data sources are available. These potential future indicators are listed in Table 2 and would provide a more comprehensive view of the intersection of transportation and public health and environmental justice issues. Another indicator that could inform environmental justice is residential and employment densities by new growth areas. Proposed safety and environmental sustainability indicators included in Table 1 also could be further evaluated as environmental justice indicators. In addition to the Economic Vitality indicators included in Table 2, the following indicators were proposed for future consideration: Labor market access (measured by population within 40-minute drive time) Delivery market access (measured by employment within a 3-hour drive time) Access to transportation hubs (e.g., maritime port, rail intermodal loading facility, freight airport measured in drive time) Change in employment Change in personal income Also, gross regional product and unemployment rate were discussed as possible indicators; however, the Technical Group felt these indicators were too broad within the set of transportation-specific indicators. The On the Map website ( could also be explored. Table 2: Proposed Performance Monitoring Indicators for Future Consideration ID Inventory Ref. (Appendix B) Category Congestion Reduction 1 A-1 Congested Arterial VMT 2 A-8 Bike and Walk Miles Traveled 3 A-16/A-18 Non-Work Mode Share System Reliability 4 A-65 Transit/Rail travel time reliability Economic Vitality 5 B-25 Residential and employment densities (new growth) - (by Environmental Justice (EJ) and Non-EJ areas) 6 C-33 Housing/Transportation Affordability Index 6/28/13 iii

6 Discussions regarding Future Implementation The nine proposed indicators identified by the Technical Group support the goals of SB 375 and, and incorporate available statewide data sources. However, throughout the indicator development effort, data availability has been an area of concern. Some MPOs are concerned about the lack of available current data and the cost to acquire data. For example, proposed indicators that rely on PeMS data will not be able to be monitored by all MPOs. In addition, while the proposed indicators can be utilized as a monitoring tool, it should also be noted that regional performance within these categories is influenced by state and national policies, funding availability, and other factors outside of the MPO sphere of influence. The MPO/State Agency SB 375 Implementation Working Group recommended that the Technical Group be reconvened prior to application of the proposed indicators to have further discussion regarding these concerns, and that the calculation of each indicator be pre-tested and validated. To follow up on future possible implementation options, the SGC could reach out to MPOs and state agencies to understand potential concerns related to future implementation of common statewide monitoring indicators. Further discussion is needed to continue addressing variations among diverse California regions, the need for flexibility in future performance monitoring which could include both quantitative and qualitative assessments, and data availability. 6/28/13 iv

7 STATEWIDE PERFORMANCE MONITORING INDICATORS Introduction In 2011, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) received grant funding from the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to support its sustainable communities planning efforts. One of the goals of the grant is to collaborate with other California Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and state agencies on common statewide transportation indicators related to Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) (Steinberg, 2008) implementation. The stated purpose of this effort was to develop a common standardized set of up to ten transportation performance monitoring indicators that would be used by California MPOs and state agencies, such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Transportation Commission, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other state agencies. Other state agencies that participated in this project include the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the California Department of Public Health, the Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the SGC. While performance measures rely mostly on modeled or forecasted data, performance monitoring indicators rely directly on observed data. MPOs use travel demand models or Geographic Information System (GIS) analyses to forecast performance measures. Ideally monitoring indicators would be considered together and be consistent with modeling performance measures. It is important to note that, currently, not all MPOs prepare monitoring reports using observed data on a regular basis. The framework to conduct this work was based upon a tiered system of performance metrics dealing with both federal and state regulations, with consideration of new and emerging measures included in recent Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). To facilitate the development of a statewide performance monitoring framework, SANDAG sought input from the MPO/State Agency SB 375 Implementation Working Group. Additionally, a Technical Group comprised of MPO and state agency technical staff was created to identify possible indicators and methodologies, and viable data sources that would allow for progress to be measured using observable data. This work builds upon the draft inventory of MPO indicators/performance measures prepared for the scoping process for the 2013 California Regional Progress Report, a comprehensive effort that catalogued dozens on transportation and other indicators. However, this project focused on identifying a small set of transportation performance monitoring indicators related to SB 375, respecting the diversity of California regions, which could be monitored using mostly statewide data sources. In addition, the emerging area of transportation and public health was a focus of discussion and several indicators that consider the intersection of transportation and public health were identified. The importance of indicators to monitor data for low income and minority populations also was discussed and, due to limitations in data availability, they were identified in a list for future monitoring. 6/28/13 1

8 This report documents general research regarding statewide and MPO performance monitoring efforts and presents a summary of existing indicators used by these agencies. A list of indicators and methodologies developed by the MPO/State Agency SB 375 Implementation Working Group and Technical Group are included, as well as potential future indicators. Summary of Scope and Process The proposed approach to conduct this project and the scope of work were presented at the MPO/State Agency SB 375 Implementation Working Group on February 19, Key tasks included the review of existing indicators from MPOs, several state agencies and research reports, development of up to ten common performance monitoring indicators that could be used to track SB 375 and Senate Bill 391 (SB 391) (DeSaulnier, 2013) implementation across California regions, definition of the indicators, and identification of methodologies and data sources. The scope of work is included in Appendix A. The MPO/State Agency SB 375 Implementation Working Group and Technical Group helped to guide the development of the performance indicators and its methodologies. The Technical Group held four meetings via conference call and webinar from March through June of An initial list of draft indicators was presented for input at the April 23, 2013, MPO/State Agency SB 375 Implementation Working Group and the proposed list of indicators, methodologies, and data sources were presented on June 18, In addition, SANDAG staff requested input on this project at presentations made at the California Association of Councils of Government (CALCOG) Regional Leadership Forum held in Monterey in April 2013, and at the CALCOG Council of Governments Directors Association of California meeting in May Statewide Performance Monitoring Indicators In order to focus the research and determine the best approach for building a statewide performance monitoring framework, a summary of current indicator practices was developed. Multiple MPOs and state agencies have incorporated a monitoring component within their long-range plans providing observed trends in unison with forecasted projections and plan comparisons. The framework for this effort builds upon the current state of the practice in California and incorporates other academic research. Provisions of federal and state legislation related to performance measurement and monitoring, such as Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act () and SB 375 also were considered throughout the process. SB 375 stipulates that transportation planning agencies maintain compliance with a set of guidelines for development of regional transportation plans and travel demand models. This bill requires MPOs to adopt a SCS as part of its RTP (or a separate alternative planning strategy). All transportation planning agencies are required to direct plan development towards inclusion of mass transportation, highway, railroad, maritime, bicycle, pedestrian, goods movement, and aviation facilities/services into its transportation plans. Transportation planning agencies with populations larger than 200,000 persons may quantify a set of indicators including measures of mobility and traffic congestion, road and bridge maintenance and rehabilitation needs, means of 6/28/13 2

9 travel by mode type, safety and security by mode type, and equity and accessibility, using existing sources of information. Summary of Existing MPO and State Agency Performance Monitoring Indicators As stated previously, this effort built upon the comprehensive draft inventory of MPO indicators/performance measures develop for the SGC as part of the 2013 California Regional Progress Report. Using information gathered by researching all 18 California MPOs, similarities and differences among performance monitoring strategies were identified. These strategies can be grouped into five main areas of focus: transportation, land use, economic competitiveness and opportunity, resource efficiency and conservation, and environment/public health. The majority of the indicators that MPOs use fall within the transportation and land use categories. The other indicators focus on accessibility to affordable housing, economic competitiveness within the region, air quality/emissions throughout the region, and areas dealing with public health. The number of monitoring indicators used by the MPOs ranges from three to 54. The differences in the number of indicators most likely have to do with differing approaches of being more detailed, keeping it simple, or the availability/applicability of the indicators in various regions. Out of the 18 MPOs in California, ten MPOs had documented performance monitoring indicators. All MPOs utilize performance measures. A listing of the specific indicators can be seen in the inventory of MPO RTP/SCS indicators/performance indicators/documents/agency reports (Appendix B). Similarities among indicators mostly include transportation-oriented indicators, including total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, mode share for all trips or commuting trips, percent of trips taken by alternative forms of transportation, annual number of fatalities/injuries, roadway level of service (LOS) by segment, travel time to job centers, average work trip/commute length in minutes by mode, agricultural land conserved, land consumption, acres consumed due to new development, jobs-housing balance - changes in ratio within 4-mile radius of employments centers, gross regional product, population, jobs within 0.25 miles of bus stops with frequent and reliable transit service possibly by income level, percent of increase in affordable and workforce housing within 0.25 miles of bus stops with frequent and reliable transit service, percent of habitat and land cover impacted, and non-attainment pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Indicator areas that are addressed by fewer MPOs include water use and consumption, resource efficiency and conservation, environment and public health, as well as equity-related indicators. There is considerable interest in including public health indicators in regional plan development and also inclusion of more social equity related monitoring efforts. Regional variations occur mostly among different sized regions. Larger and more urban MPOs typically seem to focus their indicator development around transit ridership, density, and economic factors. Smaller and more rural MPOs also keep track of those issues, but many indicators are agriculturally based and deal with open space and natural habitat conservation. 6/28/13 3

10 Summary of Existing Performance Indicator Efforts and Reports California Department of Public Health - Healthy Community Indicators Report (2012) The goal of the Healthy Communities Indicator (HCI) Report is to enhance public health by providing data, a standardized set of statistical measures, and tools that a broad array of sectors can use for planning healthy communities and evaluating the impact of plans, projects, policy, and environmental changes on community health. The HCI framework identifies 20 key elements of a healthy community, broken down into in five main categories: (1) meets basic needs of housing, transportation, nutrition, health care, livable communities, physical activity; (2) environmental quality and sustainability; (3) adequate levels of economic and social development; (4) health and social equity; and (5) supportive social relationships. The main tasks of the HCI Report framework are to identify a standardized set of indicators that define a healthy community; identify methods to develop indicators at different regional scales; develop and distribute technical documentation for local, county, regional, and state stakeholders to produce indicators; and to develop a multi-agency plan for centralized data collection, analysis, and reporting of indicators. Indicators within the category of environmental quality and sustainability appear to have the greatest continuity with measures included in other ongoing performance measurement and monitoring efforts at the MPO and state levels. Indicators within this category monitor Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, air quality issues, water consumption, and access to parks/open spaces. Other indicators relating to healthy communities that could be included in a statewide standardized indicator set fall within the meets basic needs category for transportation, accessibility, housing, or health/social equity. Specific indicators that stood out and relate to SB 375 include: (1) percent of population located less than 0.5 miles of a regional bus/rail/ferry and less than 0.25 miles of a local bus/light rail; (2) percent of residents within 0.5 miles of park, beach, open space, or coastline; (3) annual per capita GHG emissions; (4) number and rate of collisions by severity and mode of transport; and (5) miles traveled per capita by mode (car, public transit, walk/bike). Other unique indicators included are: (1) percent of households within 0.5 miles of a full-service grocery store, fresh produce market, or store with fresh produce; (2) average daily water use per capita; (3) percent of electricity from renewable sources; (4) five-year change in the number of households by income and race/ethnicity (neighborhood change or gentrification); and (5) percent of households in overcrowded and severely overcrowded conditions. From a social equity and public health standpoint, this document is a good source of information for indicator development. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act In summer 2012, new federal legislation was signed into law for funding transportation programs and supporting metropolitan and state transportation planning processes. establishes national performance goals for federal highway programs. The goals are safety, infrastructure condition, congestion reduction, system reliability, freight movement and economic vitality, environmental sustainability, and reduced project delivery delays. The United States Department of 6/28/13 4

11 Transportation (US DOT) will establish performance measures in consultation with states and MPOs. In turn, states and MPOs will establish performance targets in support of those measures. applies to the indicators effort through the sections pertaining to performance measurement, target-setting, and monitoring requirements for the National Highway Performance Program, Metropolitan Transportation Planning, and Statewide Transportation Planning. The legislation details the requirements that states must abide by in order to receive funding for various infrastructure improvements annually. The legislation does not provide specific performance monitoring indicators, but rather guidelines for compliance to the federal standards. These guidelines/criteria are established by the Secretary for the evaluation of the new performance-based planning processes. The process will consider whether states developed appropriate performance targets and made progress toward achieving the targets. Five years after enactment of, Congress will be provided with reports evaluating and detailing the overall effectiveness of the performance-based planning process regarding each state and each MPO. States and MPOs will report to US DOT on progress in achieving targets. If a state s report shows inadequate progress in some areas, the state must undertake corrective actions by documenting in its next report the actions it will take to achieve the targets, prepare an annual implementation plan, or be required to spend a specified portion of its funds on maintaining minimum standards for interstate pavement and National Highway System bridge conditions until the minimum standard is exceeded. The timeline and process for setting the performance measures occurs at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, it is required that the US DOT provide and establish such measures within 18 months of enactment (by April 1, 2014), and prohibits US DOT from establishing additional performance measures. This part of the effort and timeline partially aligned with this statewide performance monitoring effort. At the state level, performance targets in support of measures at the federal level are required to be set within one year of the US DOT final rule on performance measures. The next part of the process is to try to ensure consistency throughout each state by coordinating with various MPOs when setting performance targets for the area represented by that MPO. This part of the process, which requires MPOs to set targets, is scheduled to be completed within 180 days of the states setting of performance targets California Regional Progress Report and Draft Inventory of MPO Indicators/ Performance Measures prepared for the Scoping Process for the 2013 California Regional Progress Report The 2010 California Regional Progress Report (2010 Progress Report) reflects California s focus towards sustainability as a way in which future economic and quality of life goals can be met. The 2010 Progress Report was guided by the SGC and Caltrans in an effort to organize state activities and resources around planning and development of sustainable communities and regions. The 2010 Progress Report documents 20 cohesive and location-oriented indicators, which standardize and measure the progress of various regions throughout the state by moving towards more sustainability-oriented project development. The indicator information provided in the 2010 Progress Report show data and information relating to important issues and trends that affect 6/28/13 5

12 the future of communities, regions, or the state. The aim of the indicator report is to be used as a governance tool and to help measure and report on progress, guide decision making, and hold organizations and agencies accountable for improving outcomes related to transportation. The areas of focus for indicators and progress monitoring are efficient transportation and land use, economic competitiveness and opportunity, environmental health, and resource efficiency and conservation. The SGC has initiated the scoping process to identify priority policy issues and indicators to be included in the 2013 California Regional Progress Report. The inventory of MPO indicators/performance measures is under development by Applied Development Economics, Inc., in consultation with the SGC, California MPOs, state agencies, and other stakeholders. The draft inventory report includes indicators and performance measures in use by MPOs for its RTPs as well as initial findings and recommendations based on consultation with MPOs. The draft indicator inventory provides a comprehensive look at each of the MPO s indicator sets, as well as information related to the methodology and data sources for the indicators. The inventory matrix included in the report is a vital tool to visualize areas of commonality and variation among MPOs. The indicators that stand out the most in terms of commonality and relation to SB 375 are in the categories of: congestion/vmt reduction, mode share/trips, safety, alternative transportation, transportation system investment/service, travel time/costs, jobs, and air quality/emissions. Some of these indicators are reduced VMT, decreased fuel consumption, and increased access to transit. Other indicator categories, which show less similarity, include agricultural land/open space, development/land use, jobs/housing development, housing affordability, energy use/consumption, land conservation, water consumption, and public health. California Interregional Blueprint Interim Report (2012) The California Interregional Blueprint (CIB) is a state-level transportation blueprint that combines statewide transportation goals with regional transportation and land use plans to produce a unified multimodal transportation strategy. The CIB integrates proposed interregional highway, transit, intercity passenger rail, high-speed rail, freight movement, aviation, and other transportation system and strategic plans into a common framework for analysis. This strategic framework provides the basis for the California Transportation Plan (CTP), which is the State s long range plan. The CIB Interim Report is one element of the larger CIB effort. The CIB responds to SB 391, which requires Caltrans to prepare a new CTP by December 2015, which identifies the statewide integrated multimodal transportation system needed to achieve GHG emission reduction goals. The CIB Interim Report provides an overview of MPO RTPs and SCS-related efforts, including regional planning activities, planned initiatives and investments, and primary interregional transportation issues addressed in the plans. It also discusses the potential influences of these SCSs on the statewide transportation system. The regional efforts are grouped into nine areas of the State: the San Diego Region, the Southern California Region, the Sacramento Region, the San Francisco Bay Area Region, the San Joaquin Valley Region, the Central Coast Region, the Lake Tahoe Region, the Northern Sacramento Valley Region, and the North State Region. 6/28/13 6

13 The CIB Interim Report provides a structure for the development of the CTP It acknowledges MPOs progress on performance measurement and monitoring and the Smart Mobility Performance Measures developed as part of the 2010 Caltrans Smart Mobility Report, but does not provide specific performance monitoring indicators. The upcoming development of the CTP 2040 will be able to draw on the first round of RTPs/SCS developed by the 18 MPOs. Analysis tools, such as the California Statewide Travel Demand Model, will be available to assess interregional travel patterns, GHG emissions, and statewide transportation performance. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 708: A Guidebook for Sustainability Performance Measurement for Transportation Agencies (2011) The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report was developed by the Transportation Research Board in This document serves as a detailed guide for transportation agencies and state transportation departments to measure the sustainability of networks, systems, facilities, projects, and activities. It describes the underlying principles of sustainability as they apply to transportation agencies. The guide helps supports agency decision-making processes at various management levels, enables agencies to develop appropriate sustainability goals, objectives, and associated performance measures; and assists in the determination of methods for conducting performance measurement and monitoring as well as describes computation methods for these measures and possible data sources. The fundamental components of the sustainability performance measurement framework include understanding sustainability; developing goals, objectives, and performance measures; implementing performance measures; refining the framework; and applying continuous feedback. This document is focused toward performance measures and not specifically on performance monitoring strategies (performance measures apply more directly to modeled data, while performance monitoring applies directly to observed data). The report also provides an appendix documenting an extensive list of objectives and performance measures for each focus area that can be used to achieve each recommended goal. Some transportation-related performance measures that could be considered for monitoring purposes include: (1) change in the number of jobs within reasonable travel time (by mode) for region's population; (2) change in travel time (by mode) to schools, health services, grocery stores, civic and public spaces, recreation; (3) change in LOS for disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged neighborhoods; (4) change in trips, vehicle trips, VMT, percent non-driver, tons of emissions per day due to program; and (5) change in the number and severity of crashes by mode type Statewide Transportation System Needs Assessment (2011 Needs Assessment) The California 2011 Needs Assessment updated a previous assessment conducted in The overall goal of the 2011 Needs Assessment is to develop a coordinated list of transportation projects and programs and to identify related funding requirements that will allow local, state, and regional transportation agencies to present a consistent message when communicating statewide needs for the preservation, expansion, maintenance, and operations of the state s transportation system. The report focuses on statewide transportation system needs from 2011 to An assessment of California s transportation system needs is provided, as well as the resources required to meet these needs. The document also describes the possible outcomes that would result 6/28/13 7

14 if these transportation system improvements were implemented. This information is presented by using a set of 12 performance measures within the framework of the Smart Mobility 2010 goals. Some performance measures listed that relate to SB 375 include: (1) change in average per-trip travel time; (2) system-wide VMT per capita; (3) equitable distribution of access and mobility with comparison of outcomes for Low-Income and Minority (LIM) and non-lim communities; (4) number of injuries and fatalities per capita from all collisions (including bicycle and pedestrian); and (5) percent of total trips per capita taken by biking or walking. Smart Mobility 2010 The Smart Mobility 2010 document is an effort conducted by Caltrans, in partnership with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, OPR, and HCD. It is designed as a planning guide that further integrates smart growth concepts into transportation projects in California. The intent of the document is to develop a planning framework that helps guide and assess how plans, programs, and projects meet the definition of smart mobility. The goal is to ensure applicability of the framework for Caltrans as well as for partner agencies. Ideally, the framework can be applied to various levels of plans, programs, or projects in all parts of the state. The Smart Mobility document envisions a transformed state transportation planning program. It is provided as a form of continued support for developing a statewide interregional, multi-modal blueprint to be known as the CIB. It will enhance the scope of the existing CTP by analyzing the benefits of multi-modal, interregional projects on the transportation system. It will also serve to expand the understanding of the interactions between land use and transportation investments in meeting critical strategic growth and sustainability goals. The ultimate benefit of this effort will be stronger partnerships with regional and local agencies as well as better data development for improved decision-making at the state, regional, and local level. The six Smart Mobility Principles are location efficiency, reliable mobility, health and safety, environmental stewardship, social equity, and robust economy. These guiding principles are the foundation for much of what California transportation agencies aim to build for the future of the state. Most of the topics explained in this document relate to performance measures and not directly to performance monitoring and the development of indicators. Specific performance measures listed that relate to SB 375 and may be of interest for monitoring purposes include: (1) percentage of trips within a corridor or region occurring by bus, rail, or by other form of high-occupancy vehicle; (2) number of households within a 30-minute transit ride of major employment center, within a 20-minute auto ride of employment, and within walking distance of schools; (3) collision rate and severity by travel mode and facility, compared to statewide averages for each user group and facility type; (4) percentage of trips within a corridor or region occurring by walking or cycling; and (5) comparative travel times and costs by income groups and by minority and non-minority groups for work/school and other trips. Recommendations of the Regional Targets Advisory Committee Pursuant to SB 375: A Report to the CARB (2009) SB 375 required CARB to create the Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) to recommend factors to be considered and methodologies to be used by CARB when setting GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles and light trucks for 2020 and The RTAC 6/28/13 8

15 recommendations detailed in this report emphasize the need for CARB to track, on a long-term basis, the land use and transportation changes resulting from SB 375 implementation to ensure they help the state meet its overall GHG reduction goals. Recommendations include the development of a standardized set of performance indicators as part of a monitoring system to track regional performance. The report describes what a monitoring program is and it details the expectations for monitoring indicators and the data collection process. It recommends that CARB work with MPOs to identify a list of performance indicators. The set of performance indicators should represent the best way for measuring the impacts of land use, transportation, pricing, transportation demand/system management, and other policies. A limited number of performance indicators should be selected to measure different impacts, be easily understood by policy makers and the public, and be able to rely on readily available and reliable data. Assessment categories for the data/monitoring programs are provided based on the adequacy of the information available to perform monitoring. Other sample indicators are grouped into the following policy categories: (1) statewide funding indicators, (2) land use, (3) transportation, (4) pricing, and (5) transportation demand and system management. The RTAC discussed tracking both VMT and fuel usage data as important ways to verifying GHG emission reductions. CARB is required to update the regional targets every eight years, or every four years if significant changes to other GHG reduction measures would affect regional emission levels. Governor s OPR Environmental Goals and Policy Report (2003, Update in process) The 2003 update of the Environmental Goals and Policy Report (EGPR) is being prepared by the Governor s OPR. The EGPR will provide an overview of the state s environmental goals and steps to achieve these goals. It also will develop a framework of metrics and indicators to help track progress toward reaching the goals. The Governor s OPR has been working on sustainability indicator efforts through workshops with state agencies, academic groups, public health departments, and community-based organizations. Proposed Performance Monitoring Indicators, Methodologies, and Data Sources Proposed Performance Monitoring Indicators The Technical Group conducted a review of more than 200 performance measures and indicators used by MPOs and state agencies. The group identified those most commonly used, which could be monitored using statewide and regional data sources. The Technical Group developed a list of nine indicators and methodologies, which account for the diversity of California in terms of smaller and larger regions; more rural and more urban regions; utilize available statewide data sources; and are consistent with SB 375 and the performance goals established in. The majority of the proposed nine indicators are currently being used by some MPOs as either performance indicators or modeled performance measures, as shown in the MPO Indicator Inventory Matrix provided in Appendix B. The proposed indicators that are not currently being utilized as indicators/measures include: State of Good Repair for Highways and Highway bridges, the Freeway/Highway Buffer Index, and Fatalities/Serious Injuries per Capita (most MPOs use a 6/28/13 9

16 per-vmt metric). To ensure consistency with, the proposed list of common indicators was categorized following the goal areas, as shown in Table 1. The proposed list of indicators incorporates transportation indicators that relate to public health, shown in Table 1 with asterisks, which compare closely with similar indicators included in the draft core list of indicators developed for the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project by the California Department of Public Health. They include miles traveled, mode share, fatalities/injuries, transit access, change in agricultural land, and CO 2 emissions. Similarly, in addition to the proposed economic vitality indicators, the infrastructure indicators (State of Good Repair of transportation infrastructure) and the system reliability indicator also interrelate with economic vitality. Other relevant transportation monitoring indicators that require data sources which are not currently available at a statewide level have been identified as part of this effort, including those that could be monitored further for communities of concern (see Table 2). 6/28/13 10

17 Table 1: Proposed Performance Monitoring Indicators Inventory Statewide Performance ID Ref. (Appendix Category Performance Monitoring Measure (Model Referenced In B) Observed Data Based) Congestion Reduction 1 A-8 / A-1 VMT a. VMT per capita* b. Percent of Congested Freeway/ Highway Vehicle Miles [PeMS] SB 375 & SB 375 & 2 A-16/A-18 Mode Share (Travel to work)* Infrastructure Condition State of Good Repair a. Highways 3 - b. Local Streets c. Highway Bridges d. Transit Assets System Reliability SB 375 & 4 A-65 Freeway/Highway Buffer Index [PeMS] Safety Fatalities/Serious Injuries 5 A-39 6 C-33 a. Fatalities/Serious Injuries per capita* b. Fatalities/Serious Injuries per VMT* Economic Vitality Transit Accessibility (Housing and jobs within 0.5 miles of transit stops with frequent transit service)* SB A-84 Travel Time to Jobs Environmental Sustainability SB 375 & 8 B-1/B-5 Change in Agricultural Land* SB E-5 CO2 Emissions Reduction per capita (modeled data)* SB 375 & * Indicator relates to Public Health [PeMS] Indicator for MPOs that have access to PeMS data 6/28/13 11

18 Summary of Methodologies and Data Sources This section describes methodologies for monitoring the proposed indicators. Congestion Reduction 1. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) a. VMT per Capita: This indicator represents the total sum of vehicles on roadway segments or systems on a daily basis and multiplied by the length of roadway segment or the entire system. The VMT is divided by total population to obtain VMT per capita. VMT per Capita = Total MPO VMT / (MPO Total Population Total Incarcerated and state special care facilities populations) Data Sources: Caltrans Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). Data is based on a sampling approach, in which a sample of roadways of different types are counted, and statistically expanded to estimate total VMT in different areas within the state. The HPMS database keeps track of all federally classified public roadways and the mileage for rural and urban areas. The arterial and collector road systems are then statistically sampled to estimate the current needs and future performance of the system. The functional classifications for the HPMS are interstate, other freeways and expressways, other principal arterials, minor arterials, major collectors, minor collectors, and locals. Caltrans reports daily VMT by county. The HPMS data is updated on an annual basis. The population used as the denominator for this indicator will take into account the removal of total incarcerated and state special care facilities populations. The data source for this aspect of the indicator methodology is the California Department of Corrections, the United States Census Bureau, the Department of Finance, and the State Division of Hospitals. b. Percent of Congested Freeway/Highway VMT: This indicator represents congested freeway/highway VMT by monitoring and calculating the percent of VMT at or below 35 miles per hour. Percent of Congested Freeway/Highway VMT = Total MPO VMT at and below 35 miles per hour / Total MPO VMT 1 Data Sources: Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS). Currently PeMS collects, processes, stores and makes available data from nine Caltrans Districts (D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D10, D11, and D12). These Districts cover the major metropolitan areas in California. The districts that do not collect PeMS data at all are D1, D2, and D9. District 2 includes the Shasta Regional Transportation Agency and Districts 1 and 9 cover non-mpo, rural RTPA areas. 1 This equation also can be used to calculate congested VMT for a specific corridor or route. 6/28/13 12

19 Overall there are 19 counties without any real-time detectors. These include from Caltrans District 1; Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, and Lake Counties; from District 2; Siskiyou, Modoc, Tehama, Trinity, Lassen, Plumas, and Shasta Counties; and from District 9; Mono and Inyo Counties. Other counties without PeMS detectors in other Caltrans Districts are Alpine, Colusa, Glenn, Imperial, Kings, Modoc, and Tulare Counties. The other 39 counties have at least some detection. However, in some counties data is very limited. The counties with limited data availability are Amador, Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado, Madera, Mariposa, Napa, San Benito, Sierra, Sutter, Tuolumne, and Yuba. The primary function of PeMS is to process traffic detector data by receiving measurements of flow and occupancy from 37,000 individual freeway lane detectors. This information is taken every 30 seconds and aggregated to represent the LOS for the freeway system. To report on an annual basis, 52 individual weeks of data would need to be extracted. In the future, Caltrans may be able to update its web-based reporting system capabilities to show total annual data. PeMS data can be used for monitoring congested highway/freeway VMT by using the speed bins in PeMS. As described above, a limitation of this data source is that information is only available for some MPOs. 2. Mode Share (Travel to Work): This indicator measures the usual means of transportation to work by various modes of transportation as a percent of trips for each mode. Data sources: The American Community Survey (ACS) reports actual trends for travel to work as a percentage and as a total number estimate. Mode share categories are drive alone, carpool, public transportation, walk, bicycle, motorcycle, taxi, and worked at home. The ACS is updated every five years for populations less than 20,000, every three years for smaller populations (between 20,000 and 65,000), and every year for larger populations (65,000+). For areas with smaller populations bicycle data from the ACS is combined into a category which includes taxicabs, motorcycles, bicycle, and other means. However, other ACS products could be used to report the bicycle mode data at the county level for smaller areas (B08301 file). Infrastructure Condition 3. State of Good Repair: Indicators in this category measure the conditions of highways, local streets and roads, bridges, and transit assets. a. Pavement condition for highways: this indicator measures the percent of distressed lane miles for the state highway system. Data Source: Caltrans conducts the Pavement Condition Survey of the State Highway System annually and reports pavement condition by lane miles and percent of distressed pavement. Distressed pavement includes major and minor structural distress and poor ride quality. Data by county is available from Caltrans. b. Pavement condition for local streets and roads: the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) can be used as a metric for distressed lane miles on local streets and roads. 6/28/13 13

20 The process for calculating the PCI involves dividing the total pavement section into sample units, selecting certain sample units for testing using an industry standard. This method produces the PCI, which is a way of calculating the distressed quantities and the distressed densities for each tested unit. These values are used to determine a deduct value and this deduct value is subtracted from 100 to give the PCI value. A PCI value below 80 falls in the at risk or poor categories. Data Source: The California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment reports on the condition of local streets and roads by county using the PCI, which is calculated on a scale of 0 (failed) to 100 (excellent). This is weighted by the pavement area, which means that longer roads have more weight than shorter roads when calculating the average PCI. The report is updated every two years. Pavement monitoring systems currently in place that help manage PCI rankings are StreetSaver and Micropavers. c. Percent of highway bridge lane miles in need of replacement or rehabilitation: percent of bridge lane miles with a Sufficiency Rating (SR) of 80 or below. Caltrans monitors bridge conditions at the state and local level through its Local Highway Bridge Program: Local Bridge Inventory. Local bridge data is monitored based upon a few different rating systems. The most relevant rating system for this effort is the Bridge SR, which is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) bridge rating. Only structures that carry highway traffic have a SR. The SR is calculated based upon four elements of the rating process: the structural/safety adequacy of the bridge, the serviceability and function of the bridge, how essential the bridge is for public use, and special considerations. Highway bridges considered structurally deficient or functionally obsolete and with a SR of 80 or less are proposed to be used for the selection list. Those bridges appearing on the list with a SR of less than 50.0 would be eligible for replacement or rehabilitation while those with a SR of 80.0 or less would be eligible for rehabilitation. Step 1 Calculate Individual Weighted Bridge SR: Lane miles = [(bridge length in feet)/ 5280 feet) * the number of lanes on bridge * bridge SR rating] Step 2 SR rating per Bridge Lane Mile (County) = of all Bridge SR Lane Miles within the County (Individual Bridge lane miles * Individual Bridge SR rating) / Total Lane Miles for the County Data Source: Local Highway Bridge Program: Local Bridge Inventory. d. Transit asset condition: Percent of transit assets that have surpassed the FTA useful life period. Transit asset conditions can be monitored by using FTA s Minimum Useful Life criteria to determine how much Federal interest remains in an asset. This is based upon FTA s Useful Life Policy, which states that the useful life in years refers to total time in revenue transit service, not time spent stockpiled or otherwise unavailable for regular transit use. Minimum useful life of rail rolling stock is 25 years. Minimum useful life for buses, vans, and trolleys is determined by years of service or accumulation of miles, whichever comes 6/28/13 14